Herremann the Wise
First Post
I've always been interested in E6 or E8 or E10. I hope that 5e embraces some of these concepts when it is eventually released. Chances of this happening though...
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Are Casters 'still' way better than noncasters after level 6?
- Thread starter Sylrae
- Start date
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Again, as I said, in higher levels of play (18th+) most of the players are using multi-class characters often martial/caster mixes, so in my games single class over-powered wizards do not exist. Howver two of the players are multi-class casters (as in wizard/psionicist) tend to have more power to expend than the fighter/sorcerer mixes.
In your long response above, you spend all your time discussing what the wizard is doing to min/max his situation, as if the martial types aren't doing anything at all.
The only reason I considered your martial players as not thinking out of the box, because you spent your entire post talking about the endless power and variety being done by your wizard - and not mentioning your martial players once. I was only guessing your situation by what you explained, or rather what you didn't mention.
Anyway, my players are all min/maxers, and no matter which class they play they become overwhelming combatants - nobody's a push-over, and no caster outshines the other players. Now I'm talking our last epic campaign featured multiclass players (65 to 80th level each).
So I've played in one campaign from 1st to 85th level and have not seen the disparity, because of how we play. Also never, ever had a TPK, had half the party killed certainly in some cases. But not once have the total party been killed without one or two survivors able to get the party 'bodies' out for resurrections (which happened once).
GP
Aus_Snow
First Post
Nearly every time I've seen arguments about casters vs. non-casters in 3e, those claiming that the former outweigh the latter insist on comparing full casters when they have not yet used any spells any given day to non-casters. Even with half their spells left, the balance shifts, significantly. Let alone when it's fewer than that.
Because, yes, spellcasters have a whole lot of kewl abilities they can use - true! - but, they are limited per day. That's how the "pseudo-Vancian" D&D magic system works.
Of course, then they will pull out the "15 minute working day" mantra, as if that is how everyone plays. Or even most people, rather than a vocal minority online, jumping on those who - quite reasonably! - disagree. I've seen it time and time again.
It's as if certain DMs have a blind spot, just. . . there, and for some reason refuse to even give that possibility the time of day. Oh well.
So, much of this has been entirely predictable. However, the rest of it has produced some interesting reading, so kudos to those involved there.
Because, yes, spellcasters have a whole lot of kewl abilities they can use - true! - but, they are limited per day. That's how the "pseudo-Vancian" D&D magic system works.
Of course, then they will pull out the "15 minute working day" mantra, as if that is how everyone plays. Or even most people, rather than a vocal minority online, jumping on those who - quite reasonably! - disagree. I've seen it time and time again.
It's as if certain DMs have a blind spot, just. . . there, and for some reason refuse to even give that possibility the time of day. Oh well.
So, much of this has been entirely predictable. However, the rest of it has produced some interesting reading, so kudos to those involved there.
Werebat
Explorer
Your own anecdotes are just that. I'll assume you've been reading RPG forums for as long as I have. Are you seriously contending that there are as many "the <non-caster> is OP and dominating my campaign" threads out there as "the <full caster> is OP and dominating my campaign" threads?
Isn't there the POSSIBILITY that it isn't all of those blind-spot DMs who are the cause of the prevalence of the latter threads?
You had to go VoP monk as an example of a non-caster who could outclass the (by your own admission) non-optimized mage. How would your VoP monk do against a similarly optimized wizard like a min/maxed wizard/incantatrix/I7V or Shadowcraft Mage (head to head or in competition)? My guess is, not so well. To be fair you've got to compare the cream with the cream.
Yes, sometimes min/maxers try out a non-casting class for fun. Our table had the resident min/maxer playing a scout once, who was annoyingly unkillable but not top of the charts for damage. But his min/maxed scout did not do anything close to what his min/maxed cleric or wizard could do. Ask him if the scout class is more powerful than the wizard class and he'll laugh.
I *have* seen campaigns where the full casters are reigned in and "balanced" with the non-casters. Some packaged campaigns do this pretty well (I'm playing through "Age of Worms" right now and so far (just hit 16th level) many of the usual full caster tricks have been countered by the adventures we've been on). But in order to do this they rely on increasingly hokey seeming "coincidences". You can only deal with "perfect storm" situations so many times before you realize you are playing in a game specifically engineered to reign in the casters; and as a caster it is a wee bit annoying when so many of your special abilities are routinely countered by obscure foo or outright invented mechanics.
- Ron ^*^
Last edited:
Herremann the Wise
First Post
There is a reason why the argument/discussion always heads in one way or another. Because that is people's experiences. I wonder though how many people have played multiple high level campaigns (Levels 15+)? My guess is less than the people who weigh into this argument.
With the full core book of wizard/cleric spells at a party's disposal, the game changes. The players are in full control of what's going on in terms of combat. Spacial considerations are now moot. Death is just a corner case of unconscious. Nothing is seemingly impossible for the PCs. All the little hinderances that might have bothered a party at lower levels are wiped away with one casting, ability or another.
You highlight the 15-minute day mantra as something that only a select few experience. I wonder why that is? I'll give you some general examples and see what you think:
- Easy resource draining encounter: The wizard might assist with a haste. Maybe even get out the wand or staff if necessary but in the main, the effect on their resources is negligible.
- More demanding resource draining encounter: Pretty much the same but they might have to recast a personal buff or have used a handful of minor magics. At high level, a well played wizard lets the party soak up the brunt of this.
- You then get to a point where you can challenge the wizard forcing them to act. At this point, things start getting dangerous for the less well defended guys. The party has to focus their attacks with the wizard needing to dump a couple of big spells if the situation is stretched, otherwise the hit to resources is again minimal. Let a couple of big summonings soak up the damage rather than the party but that's it.
- Push it past this though and you force the wizard to pull out the big stuff, but at the same time, you're really making it dangerous for the other party members. This is where the difficulty in balancing things as the DM becomes a tightrope. Push too hard and your non-casters start dropping quickly.
The 15 minute work day comes in when you try pushing the group. If you've just belted them and then look to test them again, they will run and hide and rest up. You can't blame them for this, they don't want to have to spend cash on true resurrections and they generally don't want to take the XP hit for lesser raising. You can't stop them bugging out. [You can but in most cases it is highly unrealistic waving of the DM mallet of doom].
Now if you're happy to run mild encounters that's cool. Your group will have their resources slowly whittled away. My group will feel like I'm going soft on them, wondering what the hell's going on. Or more the point, they will just avoid these encounters through smart play or just simply working around them. Again spacially, you can't pin a high level group down all the time. In fact rarely can you force them to encounter anything they don't want to unless of course you trap them.
Perhaps most groups don't experience this because their groups don't play to this higher level? Perhaps they never have access to stuff that makes this style of play not only possible but the best management of resources? Have you ever read the Wyre chronicles story hour by Sepulchrave? If you have you will smile, and if you have not may I suggest you hunt it down and enjoy yourself. I think many look at this as what high level campaigning is all about. It is the perfect example of what happens when a group follows the core rules as written at their highest level. You may find it enlightening as well as enjoyable.
Anyway, I can see why people fall on either side of the 15-minute day discussion and yes, it reflects the way how they play. My own experiences are that at higher levels, combat becomes far less frequent, is more ambush orientated and is incredibly deadly. Hopefully you can see why this style of play engenders focused combat (or the 15-minute workday if that term must be used). Or you may think I have no idea what I'm talking about. Either way, such is my experience with high level play.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Herremann the Wise
First Post
Epic level play is something different again and something I have only had two campaigns worth of experience in. If you say your megatweaked multiclassers are perfectly even then such is your experience. It is different to mine. My focus has been on what I consider high level play between 15th and 20th using mainly core or pathfinder rules. The difference in power level is obvious as I mention in my post above. I'm curious how your martial types even come close in power level at these levels. Perhaps you could give an example or two?
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Though its a retired game, the character sheets are at a friend's house, so I'll post them tomorrow night, no problem. I'll post 20 level characters, though these might be 15th/5th mixed classes though.
GP
What I'm pointing out is what happened in my games. And I'm feeling like certain posters are telling me that what I experienced didn't happen, because it doesn't agree with their perception of what is supposed to happen.
Other posters have come online, and pointed out that the arguments being used seem to be ignoring tricked out martial characters, in favour of the XYZ combinations being used by full casters.
I'll absolutely agree that there are many threads about this, and there *have* been over the years. But I've never seen any of these threads involve all of the posters saying the same thing. Usually, it's a bunch of people disagreeing with each other, and talking about their favourite build, and ways of making an unkillable character. The fact that people argue about it so vociferously tells me the issue isn't cut and dry. If it wasn't, there would be no debate.
As to "pulling out" the vow of poverty monk example, that's no more extreme than "pulling out" the example of a wizard using a specific and exact formula for spell selection and the manner in which they are used, and then insisting on the "nova" tactic, which not everybody follows. Regardless, it was a real example from my game.
So were examples I could think of, of fighters, rangers, and rogues slaughtering mages before they could get all their spells off, making effective use of grappling and tripping attacks, and all kinds of other tactics that limited the ability of spellcasters to defend themselves.
Wizards can be very powerful if they have several rounds to prepare, and get the jump on the other characters via high initiative rolls. *In my experience*, if they didn't get those conditions, then they were often at a disadvantage.
It's a weird feeling I get in this discussion. Some people seem to argue that casters are so much more powerful than other character classes.....but then when options and legitimate tactics to limit or eliminate the caster are suggested, they turn around and say a game that used those tactics wouldn't be fun. If you're going to complain the characters are too powerful, you should be happy if people point out ways to control that power
Banshee
And that experience is totally cool. It just doesn't coincide with everyone. Hey, I'm willing to admit my game(s) might have been the freak exceptions. It's possible.
Banshee
Werebat
Explorer
It's a weird feeling I get in this discussion. Some people seem to argue that casters are so much more powerful than other character classes.....but then when options and legitimate tactics to limit or eliminate the caster are suggested, they turn around and say a game that used those tactics wouldn't be fun. If you're going to complain the characters are too powerful, you should be happy if people point out ways to control that power
Banshee
Ways to control spellcaster power do exist, but get hokey when used over and over. When EVERY monster is immune to scry/buff/teleport somehow, when EVERY dungeon includes mysterious effects that limit mage mobility yet somehow aren't mentioned in the rules (and no amount of knowledge checking will glean what those effects are, except maybe "magic of the gods"), when EVERY encounter day has time pressure, anti-dimensional travel effects, or some other factors preventing the 15 minute adventure day, it gets hokey. That's all. As a DM, I'd rather run E6 than a hokey game.
Similar Threads
